6 ms·

So the question that comes up with this, if there is no free market like the US medical system, would it kill the incentive for biomedical startups and pharmace

by hueving 10y ago

So the question that comes up with this, if there is no free market like the US medical system, would it kill the incentive for biomedical startups and pharmaceutical research in general (which is largely based on the US now).

vvvv 10y ago
Is the R&D largely based in the US? Also, it's important to distinguish between true R&D aimed at developing actual cures and iterative R&D aimed at developing medicine that will get you hooked on long-term courses that maximise profits.
- willvarfar 10y ago
  And R&D aimed at developing replacements for perfectly-fine drugs that are soon to go out of patent, or R&D that is put on a back burner until some other drug is about to go out of patent etc.
- hueving 10y ago
  >Is the R&D largely based in the US? As far as I understand it, yes. http://www.xconomy.com/seattle/2014/09/02/which-countries-excel-in-creating-new-drugs-its-complicated/# http://www.xconomy.com/seattle/2014/09/02/which-countries-ex... As far as your claim about most drugs being a scam, I can't speak to that as I'm not familiar enough with the industry.
snewk 10y ago
I think its clear that the US medical system is specifically not a free market. It has become (and is continuing to become) increasingly subjected to regulatory capture.
- AstralStorm 10y ago
  Corporate capture, not regulatory. Plain old corruption. Regulation just increases the barrier to enter for competition, which is beneficial to the status quo who can afford it.
  - hueving 10y ago
    >Regulation just increases the barrier to enter for competition, which is beneficial to the status quo who can afford it. Uh, that's precisely the point of regulatory capture. Ensure nobody else can compete but you.
rogerdpack 10y ago
My question is similar...is the US fitting most of the bill for R&D currently, since apparently we get ripped off for prescription drugs? (or are we getting ripped off? maybe it costs that much to develop the drugs dunno)
tracker1 10y ago
Just to clarify, the medical system in the US is far from a free market... the pharmaceutical industry itself is the opposite of a free market, inundated with incumbents and very strong patent protections without anything to force open generic production and licensing at a reasonable cost. Beyond the pharmaceuticals, is that the most expensive healthcare services are provided by hospitals that are mostly locked in by proximity.
cmdrfred 10y ago
GlaxoSmithKline spent 15 percent of revenue last year on R and D, 40 percent on marketing and sales. This is a myth. http://www.bizjournals.com/triangle/news/2016/07/19/where-gsk-ranks-in-r-d-spending-against-sales-and.html http://www.bizjournals.com/triangle/news/2016/07/19/where-gs...

by hueving 10y ago

vvvv 10y ago

Is the R&D largely based in the US? Also, it's important to distinguish between true R&D aimed at developing actual cures and iterative R&D aimed at developing medicine that will get you hooked on long-term courses that maximise profits.

willvarfar 10y ago
And R&D aimed at developing replacements for perfectly-fine drugs that are soon to go out of patent, or R&D that is put on a back burner until some other drug is about to go out of patent etc.
hueving 10y ago
>Is the R&D largely based in the US? As far as I understand it, yes. http://www.xconomy.com/seattle/2014/09/02/which-countries-excel-in-creating-new-drugs-its-complicated/# http://www.xconomy.com/seattle/2014/09/02/which-countries-ex... As far as your claim about most drugs being a scam, I can't speak to that as I'm not familiar enough with the industry.

snewk 10y ago

I think its clear that the US medical system is specifically not a free market. It has become (and is continuing to become) increasingly subjected to regulatory capture.

AstralStorm 10y ago
Corporate capture, not regulatory. Plain old corruption. Regulation just increases the barrier to enter for competition, which is beneficial to the status quo who can afford it.
- hueving 10y ago
  >Regulation just increases the barrier to enter for competition, which is beneficial to the status quo who can afford it. Uh, that's precisely the point of regulatory capture. Ensure nobody else can compete but you.

rogerdpack 10y ago

My question is similar...is the US fitting most of the bill for R&D currently, since apparently we get ripped off for prescription drugs? (or are we getting ripped off? maybe it costs that much to develop the drugs dunno)

tracker1 10y ago

Just to clarify, the medical system in the US is far from a free market... the pharmaceutical industry itself is the opposite of a free market, inundated with incumbents and very strong patent protections without anything to force open generic production and licensing at a reasonable cost. Beyond the pharmaceuticals, is that the most expensive healthcare services are provided by hospitals that are mostly locked in by proximity.

cmdrfred 10y ago

GlaxoSmithKline spent 15 percent of revenue last year on R and D, 40 percent on marketing and sales. This is a myth. http://www.bizjournals.com/triangle/news/2016/07/19/where-gsk-ranks-in-r-d-spending-against-sales-and.html http://www.bizjournals.com/triangle/news/2016/07/19/where-gs...